(K) wrote:
I dunno. Everyone around here claims that oh just anyone can, and I say
in order to scientifically establish this then anyone ought to repeat the
experiment instead of just saying it can be done. I mean we could say for
all the rest of our lives that cold fusion can be done, but that just ain't
taking it far enough. Enough talk, lets see anyone write a Book of Mormon. Everytime
I challenge with this I get all sorts of excuses as to why it is either
unscientific, or irrelevant or whatever. See, the critics would much rather
just talkity talk, talk talk, since that is so much easier than actually
bothering to prove their theories. But it's just fart in the wind as far
as i am concerned. No reproduced Book of Mormon shows that *not* just anyone can
write the thing, anyone including Joseph Smith.....

Oh God, here we go again. K, the only reason why no critics have
bothered to take up the "challenge" is that it has already been
done. Thousands, nay millions of times. Every day. All the time. It's called
"writing fiction". You may have heard of it.

Secondly, most of Nibley's "challenge" is so patently silly
that only a fool would undertake it. Take, for example, point 17:

17. Thorough investigation, scientific and historical evidence, and
archeological discovery for the next 125 years must verify its claims and
prove detail after detail to be true, for many of the details you put in
your history are still buried beneath the soil of Tibet.

What utter crap! Kindly point out where any non-LDS journal on ancient
America specifically mentions the Book
of Mormon as being vindicated. Nibley here is so damned short-sighted
that he fails to mention that point after point of the BoM is specifically
contradicted by archaeology. In fact, there is not one single archaeological
dig anywhere in America that can undeniably be linked to the BoM. This
is sophistry taken to the extreme.

Thirdly, the "challenge" is so carefully constructed, that
even if someone were to bother to take it up, he/she could still be disqualified
on the basis of "too much education". Tell me honestly, K, if
I were to undertake the challenge that Nibley described, you would instantly
disqualify me, right?

Finally, this is the point that we have been beating to death for
years - Nibley's "challenge" could be applied to a dizzying array
of Sacred Books, all with equal results. Muslims are very fond of pointing
out that Mohammed was barely in his twenties, and functionally illiterate
when he produced the Koran,
a work which is still regarded as being the pinnacle of Islamic literature.

If Joseph Smith was inspired of God, by Nibley's test, then Mohammed
was doubly so. I don't see how you can skirt this point. Basically, what
I am saying is that only a Mormon would be impressed by Nibley's challenge.
Those of us who are able to think clearly will soon see what a load of
horse manure it is.